Dear Thomas,
Your comments well taken, but I was very serious about the prejudice.
That is not rambling or disrespect, but very deep respect for what we do
not know, and for what people and cultures have different insights about.
I wanted to make clear that *minimal commitment* *does not *make a claim
that things we do not describe by the CRM do not exist. It is *not
*reductionist, it is not positivist.
In order to make machine-encoding standards of respect to culture, the
standard must take an agnostic position and identify the common
denominators in these different world views. This is the only way to
avoid cultural bias and does not describe or delimit my personal
convictions, beyond the belief that common denominators exist in
sufficient approximation of an observable reality for our purposes.
This principle seems not to be clear for some participants of this list.
Immediately a discussion starts off, how to distinguish all the
different possibilities of reality, rather than what is the minimal
model for reliable information integration in an evidence based
discourse. The attempt to exhaust reality in conceptual analysis is
indeed one of the most prominent Western cultural biases.
Further, we can not make recommendation what historical documents have
described. We may find "document the intention of producing an
offspring", but we cannot change practice of the past in such things,
and present. Even if, it would be only our concern, if there is a
research scenario in which knowledge from multiple documents could be
integrated, and so far I would regard anything that happens before birth
as a highly private thing.
Therefore so far, I do not see a need for typical sub-classes, I would
rather object.
The "male prejudice accusation" seems to become a haunting ghost;-). The
CRM so far has, if any, a female prejudice in the properties of Birth.
Would that make sense?
all the best,
Martin
On 9/24/2019 12:01 AM, Thomas Wikman wrote:
Hmm, a bit worried when all y'all start rambling about "prejudice for
or against a doctrine or ethical position”, buddhism, the Catholic
Church, holy conception and other esoteric things. Maybe the best we
can do is to document the intention of producing an offspring
(insemination, cloning, bonga-bonga for natural birth etc) and the
outcome (birth, abortion, stillborn etc). So a new super-class of
birth and and a few typical sub-classes plus typing just to avoid
accusations of male CIS prejudices and cultural bias in the CRM.
So what happened and a way of catching how it went "in historical
documentation practice”.
best / tw
On 23 Sep 2019, at 21:18, Franco Niccolucci
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Absolutely agree. As long as we have questions to answer, we are alive.
My comments were inspired by a recent discussion of Man-made thing vs
Human-made thing. So we must pay attention not to raise any adverse
reaction in wording, not in substance. Wording may suggest something
beyond our intention.
Did like my Latin speech? If so, I can also send emails in Latin :) I
hope this qualifies me as a Latin speaker, a capacity I aspire to be
fully recognized.
Best
Franco
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS
Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
Il giorno 23 set 2019, alle ore 20:12, Martin Doerr
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> ha scritto:
Dear Franco,
I agree in all points.
The problem with an ontology as the CRM is of course not to create
any prejudice for or against a doctrine or ethical position.
As we agree, the CRM has to do with things that are identified in
historical documentation practice. The amount of matter present in a
human body over time and the eternal soul, by rebirth or after
conception, free will or determined by context etc. allows for many
definitions of what a person is. Therefore, in the CRM, we take from
this the minimal commitment, which is not in conflict with any wider
definitions. This (E21) is between birth and death, as an Actor and
a material body. It makes no statement whatsoever, if a person in
social or divine understanding extends to more.
Concluding, I do not see any conflict with the Catholic position,
nor a Buddhist one. We state that "end of pregnancy" may not result
in an E21, regardless what someone regards as a person.
In other terms, we do not make philosophies about exhaustive
definitions of categories of reality. We make minimal commitments in
order to have an agreement about identity of things we refer to by a
mechanical system, and which we can use for scholarly,
non-mechanical, non-mathematical exchange of things in relation to
such identities (or not).
Would you agree?
All the best,
Martin
On 9/23/2019 5:38 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
Dear Martin, I agree with you. I tried to suggest a solution with
what we have, of course introducing new entities/properties may be
even better.
However, when stating that a birth event may not end in a new E21
Person we must be very careful. According to the doctrine of
Catholic Church, a Person exists since the very first moment of
conception, when the first cell comes into existence and starts
splitting. Such cell or assembly of cells is assumed, for example,
to have a soul since the very beginning of its existence. Maybe
also the Orthodox Church has the same belief.
I am just mentioning the above without taking part in favour or
against, of course.
Thus end of pregnancy should not be opposed to Birth unless we
formulate the scope note of the latter very carefully. I mean that
what distinguishes a Birth from an end of pregnancy which is not a
Birth should be stated without offending anybody.
On a different but related note, I think that a clear distinction
among the different cases of end of pregnancy where the baby is not
born alive is unlikely to be documented in historical documents, so
a generic category would probably suit better this particular case.
Best
Franco
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS
Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
Il giorno 23 set 2019, alle ore 15:51, Martin Doerr
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
ha scritto:
Dear Franco, All,
I agree, we have typically no coming into existence, or it is
quite undefined. This is a nice case to discuss the border cases
we encounter with all concepts.
Typically, the biological process is that of birth or alike. The
stillborn baby may be buried without social identity given. We
could have a type of Birth, with all except the coming into
existence. We could agree that ontologically, there is some coming
into existence, but a birth event does not necessarily end in a
new E21 Person.
The methodologically important question is which states of
ignorance do we encounter? Are the typical historical documents,
in which the outcome of a document birth may be unknown as it is
in reality before it happens? Or are the stillborn or miscarriage
clearly distinct, because we normally describe birth as secondary
information about a Person?
I assume the typical document uncertainty is between abortion,
miscarriage, stillborn or dying at birth, but clearly separated if
the baby lives. As an independent event, it is alternative to
Birth. That would rather suggest a superclass of Birth, ending
pregnancy.
Best,
Martin
On 9/23/2019 12:58 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
As already explained I would better avoid Birth, and even Coming
into existence.
Birth has two properties P96 by mother and P97 by father, the
former being of course more important. Using E5 Event does not
allow this, so you can only use P11 had participant. If I
remember well there is no P11.1 in the role of, but perhaps this
may be harmlessly added. If not, a dirty solution is giving a
Type to the Actor involved like
P11 had participant E39 Actor ‘Mary Doe’ P2 has type “mother”
Maybe colleagues can find a more elegant solution; type in this
case is a role, not a property of the lady. But in my opinion
only a *P11.1 in the role of ‘mother’ would work.
Best
Franco
Il giorno lun 23 set 2019 alle 11:34 athinak
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
ha scritto:
Dear Franco,
your comments are very useful and I think you are right, maybe
this is
about a more general concept or we may miss something with the
definition of E67 Birth(?). And what about the parents? they are
participants in this biological event? Especially the mother who
acts,
performs intentionally, especially in cases of stillborn, the
procedure
is to start labour. I am concerned with the definition of the birth
event.
Thank you for the feedback
Athina
Στις 2019-09-23 11:45, Franco Niccolucci έγραψε:
My suggestion would be to avoid being involved in ethical and
religious discussions (when does the ‘person’ start to be such?)
and go one step up in the entity hierarchy so:
* instead of E21 Person use E20 Biological Object (superclass of
E21)
qualified with P2 has type
* instead of E67 Birth use E5 Event qualified with P2 has type.
In my
opinion using instead E63 Beginning of existence (superclass of E67)
is risky because applying the identity criteria to a fetus is
uncertain and subject to ethical discussion, so the only safe
solution
is to record when it manifests to the world with a birth or
miscarriage.
Best
Franco
Il giorno lun 23 set 2019 alle 10:21 athinak
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
ha
scritto:
Dear all,
I am working on a project relating to historical information
(sources)
on Seafaring lives and Maritime Labour in 19th-20th century -
we map
the
raw data to CIDOC CRM (or an extension of it). Historians collect
data
from various records, such as Civil Registers, which are records
documenting persons born or dead - basically, they register the
deaths.
So I have this case: they register as persons the miscarriages or
the
stillborn or the abortions, and they assign attributes such as the
number of registration, personal information
(name,surname,etc. )of
the
parents, the place of residence (which is the parents address, of
course) and the sex of the aborted or still born (something they
knew
afterwards). I suppose this is a difficult ethical and biological
subject- my question is how would you model the miscarriage or the
still
born or the abortion? It is not exactly defined as E21 Person
and if
it
is a case of still born, it can be a kind of a E67 Birth Event, but
if
it is a miscarriage, I believe it is not a birth event, it is a
different biological process, so what is it?
Any thoughts that would help?
thanks,
Athina Kritsotaki
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email:
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Web-site:
http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email:
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Web-site:
http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: [email protected]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
